The purpose of ordination

Invincible_summer

I don't mean to be disrespectful to all the great teachers and monks who devote/have devoted their lives to upholding the Dhamma. I would just like to ask a direct question: what is the purpose of ordination if even laypeople can become enlightened?

And in the Mahayana tradition, what is the purpose of ordaining if, because of Buddha-nature, we are already enlightened?

I don't mean to say that enlightenment is the end-all be-all of Buddhist practice. I've just heard people say that the monastic environment is more conducive to Buddhist practice. But - in theory - can't a layperson live and practice the Dhamma in a wise and skillful way? I mean, many Zen monks and Shin Buddhist priests are married with families. Some people in certain traditions (I'm thinking Zen and NKT in particular, just from personal experience in having met a few) even work jobs while being ordained... how is that any different from being a "good" layperson?

genkaku

For those inclined to Buddhism, the lay person tries to learn what the monk already knows even as the monk strives to learn what the lay person already knows. We distinguish these two by station, but what is already known is indistinguishable.

aMatt

Because the practice of Buddhism varies between practitioners. Some wish to shave the mop and others do not. From the dharma talks and personal instruction I have been a part of, monastics can greatly help cut through the chaotic views of a lay life, and lay folks can help challenge preconceptions in monks and deepen their understanding of the breathing dharma. We are not separate, rather two points on the same sphere.

karmablues

Invincible_summer said:

I've just heard people say that the monastic environment is more conducive to Buddhist practice. But - in theory - can't a layperson live and practice the Dhamma in a wise and skillful way?

In the Sammanapala Sutta, the Buddha said:

"A householder, or a householder's son, hears that Dhamma. Having heard it, he comes to feel faith in the Perfect One. Possessed of this faith, he reflects thus: 'The household life is cramped. It is a path choked with dust. To leave it is to come out into the open air. It is not easy for one who lives at home to lead the holy life in all its perfect fullness and purity, bright as mother-of-pearl. Surely I should now shave off my hair and beard, go forth into the homeless life.' In course of time, he gives up his possessions, be they many or few, and his circle of kinsmen, be it small or large, shaves off his hair and beard, puts on the yellow robe, and, leaving his home, goes forth into the homeless life."

Note that the Buddha did not say that it was impossible to live wisely and skillfully as a layperson but that "it is not easy for one who lives at home to lead the holy life in all its perfect fullness and purity". I think if we consider the various distractions of life such as earning a living, property, family, friends, money, entertainment, etc. it is quite obvious why being a monk is more conducive for a contemplative life and meditation.

Also, while monks have to give up worldly pleasures, they also free themselves from worldly sufferings such as arguments with the spouse, paying off mortgages, being laid off, divorce, etc. In fact I would imagine that after maybe a few years of getting used to living life as a monk, one will probably find more peace and happiness than before. Incidentally, the happiest person in the world happens to be a Tibetan monk.

So for some, ordination can be seen as a win-win situation. You get to have a more happy, peaceful life while also being in a more conducive environment for progressing in your practice.

zenmyste

For me personally, I think some people become 'monks' to 'escape' the everyday 'crap' in the world..

Its 'easier' for monks to practice and 'still' their minds.. Because its easier when you are around the right environment and usually monks are only around 'monks' and they all meditate and practice 'together'...

I once watched a documentary about hermit monks.. And they said themselves that they live alone in the mountains to escape the 'everyday' suffering of life.. They believe there are too many 'distractions' around in the ordinary life which is why they 'remove' themselves from the 'trap' of 'going to work, paying taxes, doing this, doing that.... Etc etc etc... They are sick of playing the 'role' that people 'expect' of them...

Monks and hermits have got it sussed if you ask me.. !

vinlyn

zenmyste said:

For me personally, I think some people become 'monks' to 'escape' the everyday 'crap' in the world..

...

I would imagine that various monks ordain for various reasons...that being one of them.

Jeffrey

There is still crap as a monk (literally and figuratively). But there is no drugs, alcohol, shopping, and other sense pleasures. There is mindful eating of simple foods (I imagine).

karasti

Almost all teachers that I know of, are ordained. Can someone who is a layperson, who has a job, and a home and children and a wife and all the things that come along with it, really have the time to appropriately be able to study well enough to teach others? For me, that is what I think of when I think of ordained people. Obviously not all of them become teachers. But all the teachers I know, are ordained. Many of them have claimed they personally would have perferred to stay on solitary retreat, but their masters instructed them to "go here, and teach." so they did. Quite thankful they did. If they were householders in their own countries and never ordained, would Buddhism have spread so much? Would it be even remotely accessible to as many people?

zenmyste

Jeffrey said:

There is still crap as a monk (literally and figuratively). But there is no drugs, alcohol, shopping, and other sense pleasures. There is mindful eating of simple foods (I imagine).

I dont get what your point is??

Are you saying you think Drugs, alcohol, shopping and other pleasures are really pleasures???
They are not 'pleasures'... We 'think' they are pleasures, but they are all distractions of the 'way'... (The crap im refering too)

But As for Mindful eating (which you say monks do) that isnt 'crap'.... Thats meditation!

seeker242

Invincible_summer said:

I don't mean to be disrespectful to all the great teachers and monks who devote/have devoted their lives to upholding the Dhamma. I would just like to ask a direct question: what is the purpose of ordination if even laypeople can become enlightened?

And in the Mahayana tradition, what is the purpose of ordaining if, because of Buddha-nature, we are already enlightened?

I would say it depends heavily on the individual person. Some people do so simply because there isn't anything better to do. They see laylife as a pointless endeavor with nothing in it that can bring any kind of real satisfaction. Because they see it as empty life, they leave it behind. You could say they already have left it behind, which is why they became monks. You could say they became monks because there is no reason not to. Of course, don't think the same can be said for all monks.

Silouan

The main purpose is that monks and nuns are the foundation of their respective tradition and keep its teachings alive and pure not only for themselves but also for making “enlightenment” accessible for laity too. Initially the motivation of the ascetic appears to be that of a retiring or escape from the world, but that initial motivation is eventually transformed to include it. The Buddha initially sought retirement after becoming awake, but was entreated to remain and teach which of course he did.

I admire monasticism regardless of the tradition and have a great respect for monks and nuns for what they are attempting to accomplish and in return provide. There is a synergy between the lay and monastic communities. Each has a role with their own unique challenges but they are dependent upon each other.

This is a link to one of my favorite short documentaries on the monastic life highlighting its special challenges particularly for the novice. Though it is Orthodox Christian the insights given can be easily used in understanding the challenges monastics of all traditions face.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=c1PKfLJVhdg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Jeffrey

@zenmyste, I think there was something lost in translation or speaking. I agree with everything you said about my post. That's why I posted it; it was to share my view.

Ordination gets you away from all of those sense pleasures. I am not saying it's impossible to live a lay life without those pitfalls, but very commonly we shop and so forth. Shopping isn't bad, I mean I shop. It is just that it consumes energy and we think of all things we want. Drugs and so forth have their own pitfall.

In return for losing all of that 'stuff' a monk indeed meditates such as in mindful eating.

Basically I am trying to argue monks ARE trying to get away from stuff but a lot of that stuff is a pitfall so it's logical to become a monk if you want to avoid. It's like I live with my mom. If she is eating ice cream I will want some too. But if I were alone I wouldn't buy it and wouldn't even think of it probably.

caz

The point of Ordination is to train the mind with extensive morale discipline, By abandoning seek after the sense pleasures the Ordained free themselves alot of time for practice even if they do have to work part time to support themselves as lay people we should make the effort to donate toward them.

Invincible_summer

I think some posters are misconstruing my post as an attack on monasticism - it is not. I don't believe that ordination is just a form of escapism or relinquishment of responsibilities (although I'm sure some people do use it as such).

karasti said:

Almost all teachers that I know of, are ordained. Can someone who is a layperson, who has a job, and a home and children and a wife and all the things that come along with it, really have the time to appropriately be able to study well enough to teach others? For me, that is what I think of when I think of ordained people. Obviously not all of them become teachers. But all the teachers I know, are ordained. Many of them have claimed they personally would have perferred to stay on solitary retreat, but their masters instructed them to "go here, and teach." so they did. Quite thankful they did. If they were householders in their own countries and never ordained, would Buddhism have spread so much? Would it be even remotely accessible to as many people?

True, monastics have an important role as teachers. But are lay teachers (such as those in the Insight Meditation Society) or even ordained teachers who have families "not as good" then, because of their "attachments?"

As for whether or not Buddhism would have been as accessible or have spread as far without monastics... I think that's debatable but also way too speculative to address.

caz said:

The point of Ordination is to train the mind with extensive morale discipline, By abandoning seek after the sense pleasures the Ordained free themselves alot of time for practice even if they do have to work part time to support themselves as lay people we should make the effort to donate toward them.

But if an ordained Buddhist is working part-time and still has to pay rent, has the risk of getting fired, etc, what is the difference between their situation and being a "good" Buddhist layperson?

Silouan

Monks and nuns must also eat and work to maintain their lives and monasteries, so their practice has to involve every aspect of their life just like a layperson.

It seems to me that Samsara is a state of mind and therefore about perception more than anything else, so are we really talking about vanishing from the world in a puff of smoke then or about transforming how one perceives various experiences and interacts with the world?

If one is in a Samsaric state of mind then moment from moment it continually is giving birth to perceiving experiences in a certain conditioned way. Enlightenment would then be the end of that cycle, but not the capacity for cognitive experience I would think, so a layperson like a monastic, being of same mind, has the same potential though some environments are more conducive for realizing that potential than others.

Daozen

I prefer chaos-ination

caz

Invincible_summer said:

I think some posters are misconstruing my post as an attack on monasticism - it is not. I don't believe that ordination is just a form of escapism or relinquishment of responsibilities (although I'm sure some people do use it as such).

karasti said:

Almost all teachers that I know of, are ordained. Can someone who is a layperson, who has a job, and a home and children and a wife and all the things that come along with it, really have the time to appropriately be able to study well enough to teach others? For me, that is what I think of when I think of ordained people. Obviously not all of them become teachers. But all the teachers I know, are ordained. Many of them have claimed they personally would have perferred to stay on solitary retreat, but their masters instructed them to "go here, and teach." so they did. Quite thankful they did. If they were householders in their own countries and never ordained, would Buddhism have spread so much? Would it be even remotely accessible to as many people?

True, monastics have an important role as teachers. But are lay teachers (such as those in the Insight Meditation Society) or even ordained teachers who have families "not as good" then, because of their "attachments?"

As for whether or not Buddhism would have been as accessible or have spread as far without monastics... I think that's debatable but also way too speculative to address.

caz said:

The point of Ordination is to train the mind with extensive morale discipline, By abandoning seek after the sense pleasures the Ordained free themselves alot of time for practice even if they do have to work part time to support themselves as lay people we should make the effort to donate toward them.

But if an ordained Buddhist is working part-time and still has to pay rent, has the risk of getting fired, etc, what is the difference between their situation and being a "good" Buddhist layperson?

The robes and vows

sndymorn

Yes the "robes and the vows." And I as a lay person assume those whom take on the outward symbol , the robes, ascribe to the vows these robes represent. They are a priesthood which forms the framework of " church ( I use "church "only as reference to organization)of Buddha . "It is necessary and good that ordained experts guide lay people. As monks work at their commitment to what we laity trust will be a serious attempt to succeed in their learning, we laity are prodded( insert your own adjective here if you do not like " prodded") to follow . A good thing I think.
Many people need positive , wonderful examples of uprightness (insert your adj.here ) we can put our hands on, people we can point at . So we create a system which helps us identify ,literally, the best amongst us. We look to these people to be better than us. At least I do.
And the Buddhist system , and ordination at its core, creates the public face , a marvelous public face, which can then draw funds and attention to the goals ,included amongst them growth, of the organization. Very important too I think.

So that is one idea of why to ordain.

Invincible_summer

caz said:

The robes and vows

If we can take refuge in the 3 jewels, make Bodhisattva vows, and take the 5 (or even 8) precepts without any ceremony or having to go to a monastery, what's the difference between taking the same vows of a monk and actually ordaining as a monk?

The point I'm trying to get at with this Devil's advocate questioning isn't "do we need monks?" I have toyed with the idea of ordaining one day. I have lots of respect for monks and nuns. But I can't help but wonder what the essential difference is between a really devout, practiced layperson and a monk/nun, minus the robes and shaved head.

riverflow

@Invincible_summer -- Perhaps the bigger picture lies not in the individual monastic but in an ongoing communal practice 24/7.

I go to a monastery once a week. Out of 168 hours of one week, I spend only 6 of those hours there (3.6% of my week). In addition I spend a couple hours with a small lay sangha group.

Beyond those eight hours, I do of course practice, but not with a sangha-- not with a support group that has similar values and goals. I would imagine working with others in a total communal practice setting would have a much more significant impact than as an individual.

The difference lies not in what the individual monastic does in contrast to an individual layperson, but the broader communal context in which the monastic can practice in contrast to the layperson who spends far less time in that setting.

lobster

ordination allows focus on practice
this increases the likelihood of awakening

Invincible_summer

riverflow said:

@Invincible_summer -- Perhaps the bigger picture lies not in the individual monastic but in an ongoing communal practice 24/7.

I go to a monastery once a week. Out of 168 hours of one week, I spend only 6 of those hours there (3.6% of my week). In addition I spend a couple hours with a small lay sangha group.

Beyond those eight hours, I do of course practice, but not with a sangha-- not with a support group that has similar values and goals. I would imagine working with others in a total communal practice setting would have a much more significant impact than as an individual.

The difference lies not in what the individual monastic does in contrast to an individual layperson, but the broader communal context in which the monastic can practice in contrast to the layperson who spends far less time in that setting.

This is a very satisfactory answer! _/\_ Didn't really think about the community of monks/nuns as a whole.

karasti

True, monastics have an important role as teachers. But are lay teachers (such as those in the Insight Meditation Society) or even ordained teachers who have families "not as good" then, because of their "attachments?"

No, no, not at all. That's not what I meant. Our Sangha leader/teacher is a monk. But he lives 250 miles away so another man runs the Sangha for our weekly meetings and get togethers. He's a lay person with a wife and grown children and grandkids and a busy job and a home and so on. He is a very good and knowledgeable teacher. I was only saying that for many or most lay people, those attachments can be hard enough to work through without also taking on a teaching role. I didn't mean that they couldn't, or shouldn't. But I think the teachings in many areas would suffer with no monks/nuns because of that. I don't think we'd have nearly as many centers and teachers in the US without the monastic community. Lay people just (mostly) do not have the time. Even the ones who do, are often spinoffs of what monks and nuns already had started.